The Last Monitor: USS Canonicus

This post is also available as a YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kduKT09uoX0

USS Canonicus, (photo above: https://www.loc.gov/item/2016806366/ ) the last surviving original monitor of the United States Navy, was photographed and filmed at the International Naval Review at the 1907 Jamestown Exhibition. She survived to this point only because the navy didn’t think she’d make a good target for gunnery practice, and no buyer had come forward when she was offered at auction for scrap - the last four other monitors finding buyers. While her fate hung in the balance, Congress decided that the upcoming Naval Review should have a Civil War-era monitor to illustrate the progress of naval construction. The Navy’s concerns about spending money on a rusting old hulk which might sink at any moment notwithstanding, Congress’s decree meant that the Canonicus would be sent to Hampton Roads where the prototype USS Monitor had faced CSS Virginia in battle.

Little more than a week after the novel USS Monitor successfully fought CSS Virginia in the Battle of Hampton Roads (March 8th, 1862), Congress ordered additional vessels of the type from Monitor’s inventor John Ericsson. The resulting ten ships, the Passaic class, represented an improvement of the type. Most notably, the pilot house was moved to a position atop the turret and a giant 15-Inch Dahlgren replaced one of the 11-Inch Dahlgrens in the turret. The Passaic class ships would be tested to their limits in battle against the forts Charleston.

Photo above: Passaic-class Monitor USS Catskill is seen at Charleston near the end of the Civil War. Note the pilot house, the muzzles of the 15-Inch Dahlgren and 11-Inch Dahlgren, and two Dahlgren Boat Howitzers (one of them a rifle). Captured Confederate projectiles may also be seen: three from 6.4-Inch or 7-Inch rifles and one from the giant 12.75-Inch Blakely Rifle. Library of Congress Photo: https://www.loc.gov/item/2018666835/

The nine vessels of the Canonicus-class incorporated yet more improvements over the Passaics - especially as their construction was delayed to incorporate the hard-won lessons of combat. The Canonicus-class monitors had more powerful engines and a larger propellor. Their turrets mounted two of the 15-Inch Dahlgrens. They had improved ventilators. Considering how much low speed and poor ventilation had hampered operations and habitability off the Passaic-class ships at Charleston in 1863, these improvements were significant.

USS Canonicus, name ship of the class, commissioned at Boston in April of 1864 and was sent to the James River in Virginia.

Photo above: USS Canonicus and auxiliary vessels on the James River in 1864-1865. Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/2018666833/

Engagement with Battery Dantzler at Howell’s Barn on the James River, June 21st, 1864

On June 21st, 1864, the US Navy squadron on the James River observed a new Confederate Battery at Howlett’s Barn near Trent’s Reach. USS Canonicus as well as USS Tecumseh, USS Saugus (both Canonicus-class monitors), and USS Onondaga (a double turreted monitor) opened fire on the battery. Battery Dantzler, as it was called by the Confederates, replied - hitting the monitors and causing some damage to Saugus. The Confederate squadron upriver of Trent’s Reach including the ironclads CSS Virginia II and CSS Fredericksburg soon opened fire at extreme range on the US Navy ships - though the fire of the Confederate gunboats was ineffective as they were firing without having their targets under direct observation.

The US Navy officers described the battery as being armed with a 10-Inch smoothbore, a heavy rifle, and two smaller guns. 1865 photos (below) of Battery Dantzler at Howlett’s show a 7-Inch Brooke Rifle and 10-Inch Columbiad. A Confederate report following a December 5th action also describes a 7-Inch Brooke at the battery.

US Navy Ironclads on the James River in 1864-1865 including USS Saugus (nearest) with two other monitors astern (monitor in center in distance is possibly Canonicus). USS Atlanta and USS Onondaga are the last two at left. US National Archives - Via Navsource

USS Canonicus’s captain, Commander Enoch Greenleafe Parrott, reported of the action:

SIR: On the 21st instant, near noon, the rebels unmasked near Howlett's a battery of four guns, whose completion we had been for some time endeavoring to prevent or retard by occasional shots, and opened a fire upon us and the vessels in our vicinity, which was kept up until dark. They had a large smoothbore, a large rifle, and two smaller guns. As soon as they commenced unmasking, we opened on them with our two XV-inch guns, firing rapidly at first, but afterwards only occasionally, to economize ammunition.

One of their guns was dismounted by a shell from the ironclads, and another shell was seen to traverse an embrasure, but the distance, 2,200 yards, was large for firing at single guns. We were struck twice. The effect of these shot is described in the accompanying report of Chief Engineer Macomb. The injury is slight.

We fired forty shells with 35-pound charges. Everything stood well about the guns and gun carriages. The rebel ironclads came down the river, but not in sight, and opened upon us a random fire, over the trees, which hit nothing, and which, I believe, was not noticed. The batteries have since continued silent and their guns are again masked.

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant,

E. G. PARROTT

(Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 10. Pg. 182.)

Above photos show a 7-Inch Brooke Rifle (left, https://www.loc.gov/item/2018672130/) and a 10-Inch Columbiad (right, https://www.loc.gov/item/2011646158/) both photographed at Battery Dantzler in 1865. Except for a small number of heavier Brookes, these two types were the best Confederate industry could produce for defense against monitors.

Engagement with Battery Dantzler on the James River, December 5th-6th, 1864

USS Canonicus would participate in a similar action against Battery Dantzler on December 5th and 6th, 1864. Between the two days, Canonicus fired forty-five shells and one shot at a range of about 2,300 yards. Canonicus suffered no damage in this engagement from enemy fire, but her new captain, Lieutenant Commander George E. Belknap would write, “I ceased firing from the right gun at the seventh round, the upper portion of the outer plate of the turret having been forced out 1 inch and 8 boltheads broken off by the blast of the gun.” (Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 11. Pg. 148).

Again, it was USS Saugus which suffered most in the engagements. Her captain, Commander Edmund R. Colhoun reported,

“The enemy fired at us 32 shots from two guns, one a X-inch Columbiad, the other a 7-inch Brooke rifle. We were struck twice by the latter, once on the turret and once on the side armor on starboard bow, just below the surface of the water. The hit on the turret was a severe one, breaking five of the 2-inch bolts which secure the base ring to the turret. Thirty-six of the turret bolts are broken and forty others are started, probably a number of them being fractured. I am satisfied that blow was not more severe than some received by the Weehawken when under my command off Charleston, the effect of which was some eight or ten bolts broken, showing the great superiority of the original plan of securing the turret plates. The shot which struck on the side armor did no damage.” (Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 11. Pg. 146).

The Confederate Army Captain commanding Battery Dantzler wrote to John M. Brooke: “We have had a lively fight at Dautzler with the ironclads all the evening. The 7-inch gun has been most active. Struck the ironclads four or five times. The dents are apparent and men are seen working on them. All the land and mortar batteries opened. General Pickett asks that you send it as many wrought-iron bolts as possible. Distance 2,300 yards.” (Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 11. Pg. 149).

Photo above: 8-Inch Columbiad at Drewry’s Bluff on the James River upriver of Battery Dantzler. For more photos of this Columbiad.

The First Battle of Fort Fisher, December 24th-25th, 1864.

In December of 1864, USS Canonicus joined the expedition against Fort Fisher. She closed to within 800 yards of the fort and fired 134 shells and 10 shrapnel from her 15-Inch Dahlgrens over the course of the two days bombardment of December 24-25th. Lieutenant Commander Belknap reported that the ship received four hits - none causing significant damage and none of her crew were injured. Belknap claimed to have dismounted two guns in the fort and credited executive officer Lieutenant McCook and Chief Engineer Macomb with the excellent gunnery and operation on the machinery. Like many in the fleet, he expressed frustration that General Butler called off the land attack, stating that “any time after 3 o’clock p.m. on each day of the attack, the fort might have been occupied and held by our land forces with very slight loss” (Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 11. Pg. 277).

Above photo - First Battle of Fort Fisher (December 24th-25th, 1864) as illustrated in the January 28th, 1865 issue of Harpers Weekly. The monitors may be seen at right.

The Second Battle of Fort Fisher, January 13th-15th, 1865

On January 13th, 1865, the US Navy returned to Fort Fisher to finish the job. Lieutenant Commander Belknap would report of the action:

“On the first day of attack, the 13th, the enemy replied vigorously to our fire until late in the afternoon, when the heavier ships coming into line soon drove them into their bombproofs. Soon after we had taken position it became evident that since the previous attack a reinforcement of experienced artillerists had been received in the fort, as its fire was much more accurate and spirited than before. They soon obtained our range and struck the ship frequently, while many shots fell close alongside. Upon one occasion two shots out of three, fired simultaneously, struck the side armor, abreast of the turret.

We count 36 hits this day, and everything about the deck not shot-proof was badly cut up. Two men were knocked down and stunned at the guns by the impact of a X-inch shot upon the turret. The flag was shot away twice, and gallantly replaced by Quartermaster Daniel D. Stevens.

Not content with solid shot, the enemy fired shells occasionally, to burst over the turret, and now and then the bullet of a sharpshooter whistled over us.

On the second and third days the fire of the enemy was comparatively feeble and principally directed at the gunboats, and when the larger ships came into action ceased altogether. An occasional musket shot fell near us, and when the naval assaulting column was driven back many of the bullets and grapeshot fired at our gallant fellows passed over us, some few striking the ship. Second Assistant Engineer John W. Saville received a severe wound in the left thigh from a grape-shot. At this time we also received a X-inch shot on the side armor, fired from the water battery on the right of the sea face of the fort. Our fire was slow and deliberate, and every effort was made to dis- mount the enemy's guns, and, though almost hidden by traverses, I am happy to say that we succeeded in dismounting two of them. Acting Ensign M. W. Weld knocked over a 6-inch rifle on the second day, and the executive officer, Lieutenant R. S. McCook, disposed of a X-inch Columbiad on the third day of the action. I also saw a shell from the Monadnock dismount a gun, and a shot from the Mahopac knock the muzzle off from another. We expended during the three days 297 XV inch shells.” (Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 11. Pg. 464.)

An illustration depicting Quartermaster Daniel D. Stevens Medal of Honor action replacing the flag of USS Canonicus. Naval History and Heritage Command Illustration: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/us-people/s/stevens-daniel-dickinson/nh-79935.html The Illustration is from Volume 2 of “Deeds of Valor” and may be found here: https://archive.org/details/deedsofvalorhowa02beye/page/78/mode/2up

Photo Above: Diorama depicting the attack of US Soldiers, Marines, and Sailors on Fort Fisher, January 15th, 1865. The ships of the fleet may be seen in the distance. As seen at the old Cape Fear Museum, Wilmington, North Carolina, Spring 2025.

Illustration showing the position of the ships of the US Navy bombarding Fort Fisher. USS Canonicus is among the ships closest to the north east corner of the Fort. Naval History and Heritage Command.

The land face of Fort Fisher at evening, Summer 2025.

A giant 15-Inch Shell of the type fired by USS Canonicus is the largest projectile in the display of US Navy projectiles and fragments displayed at Fort Fisher State Historic Site (2025 photos).

The Capture of Charleston, February 18th, 1865

Following the capture of Fort Fisher, USS Canonicus was despatched to Rear Admiral John Dahlgren’s South Atlantic Blockading Squadron arriving off Charleston on January 19th. On the evening of February 17th, 1865, Canonicus was steaming at the entrance to Charleston Harbor.

Report of Lieutenant-Commander Belknap, U. S. Navy, regarding the surrender of Charleston.

“U. S. S. CANONICUS,

Charleston Roads, S. C., February 19, 1865.

ADMIRAL: I have the honor to report that on the night of the 17th instant I had the advance picket duty at the entrance of the harbor with the vessel under my command. Throughout the night our batteries on Cumming's Point shelled the rebel works on the western end of Sullivan's Island, the enemy replying with an occasional shot from Fort Moultrie during the first watch. During the mid and morning watches heavy fires broke out in the city, and heavy explosions were heard now and then in the direction of the town, as well as on James Island. At daylight I put the ship underway and steamed up toward Moultrie, but the air was so full of haze and smoke that nothing could be seen until after 7 o'clock a. m. At about 7:45 a. m. the sun cleared the atmosphere a little, and approaching within long range of Moultrie, I threw two shells into that work. Eliciting no response, I dispatched a tug to the John Adams to inform Captain Scott that I could discover no movements on the island.

The rebel flag was still flying, however, on Moultrie as well as on Castle Pinckney and in the city. At this time, also, a magazine blew up in Battery Bee. Believing from these facts that a party of the enemy were still on the island, destroying their stores, magazines, etc., I did not deem it prudent to risk a boat's crew on shore; nor, with the recent fate of the Patapsco before our eyes, did I think it proper to risk the ship in a simple reconnaissance by standing farther up the channel. In the meantime the Mahopac, the supporting monitor, weighed her anchor and came up the channel near this ship.

After sending the tug to communicate with Captain Scott, I steamed slowly down toward Wagner buoy. When abreast of the buoy a boat was observed to push off from Cumming's Point and pull toward Sumter, and a few minutes later a boat showing a white flag was discovered pulling over from Sullivan's Island.

I immediately put the ship about, steamed up the channel at full speed, and sent an armed boat in charge of Acting Ensign R. E. Anson to land at Moultrie and take possession. The army boat, and one from the Mahopac, had, in the meantime, communicated with the boat from the island, and were now pulling in for the fort also. The army boat having the start reached the shore first, when Mr. Anson kept away and pulled down to Battery [Fort] Beauregard, landed, and hoisted the flag upon that work. The Mahopac's boat taking the opposite direction, soon put the national colors upon Battery Bee.

About 9 o'clock a. m. I boarded and took possession of the English blockade runner Sylph, or Celt, which ran ashore abreast of Moultrie on the night of the 14th instant, coming out of the harbor with a cargo of cotton. I did not deem it necessary to hoist a flag upon her.

There are in Fort Beauregard eleven guns, of the following classes and calibers, viz: One X-inch, three VIII-inch, and three VI-inch smoothbore, one 8-inch and two 6-inch rifled guns. All these guns are in serviceable condition, except the 8-inch rifle and one 64-inch rifle, which are spiked.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

G. E. BELKNAP,

Lieutenant-Commander”

(Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 16. pp. 258-259.)

Photos: Left - A Banded and Rifled 32-Pounder (with repaired trunnion) at Fort Moultrie with Battery Beauregard in the background. Library of Congress Photo: https://www.loc.gov/item/2018666900/

Right: Fort Moultrie from the sea face in 2024.

USS Canonicus and the Search for CSS Stonewall

On May 16th, 1865, Acting Rear Admiral Sylvanus William Godon was ordered to take his flagship, the sidewheel steamer USS Susquehanna, the double turreted monitor USS Monadnock, and a small number of light ships to set out from Hampton Roads in search of the ironclad ram CSS Stonewall - then suspected to be heading from Nassau to Havana . Admiral Godon was instructed to call at Port Royal and “get the best monitor Rear Admiral Dahlgren has” before setting out to capture or destroy the rebel ironclad (Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 3. Pg. 518.)

At Port Royal on May 22nd, Admiral Godon found USS Canonicus to be the monitor in the best shape - which wasn’t saying much as all the monitors had seen hard service some had mechanical deficiencies and others were leaking. Reports suggested that CSS Stonewall had arrived at Havana on May 11th but was said to have left on May 13th. Her supposed destination was unknown, but Godon suspected that Stonewall was heading to Galveston, Texas - which at the time was one of the last ports still held by Confederate authorities. Godon led his squadron to Havana, intending to learn where the Rebel ironclad went from there (Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 3. Pg. 525.)

Photo above: USS Susquehanna photographed during or after the Civil War. Naval History and Heritage Command: https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-48000/NH-48101.html

Photo Above: Officers aboard USS Susquehanna in October of 1864. Library of Congress Photo: https://www.loc.gov/item/2013646180/

USS Monadnock in 1866 at Mare Island, California. US Navy photo via Navsource.net.

The passage to Havana was a difficult one for USS Canonicus. Even under tow by USS Fahkee, the two ships only made five knots. Eventually Rear Admiral Godon had his flagship take both Fahkee and Canonicus in tow - a combination which still only resulted in a speed of seven knots for the three ships. USS Monadock, on the other hand, was described by Godon as “giving great satisfaction” on the passge.

Arriving at Havana, Godon found CSS Stonewall still in the harbor there. USS Connecticut had been on station at Havana since around May 16th, and her Captain, Charles Boggs, sent a message to CSS Stonewall sharing the news of the surrender of all armed Confederate forces east of the Mississippi. Boggs’s note implied that with the war winding down, it would be in the best interest of Captain Page and the crew of Stonewall to surrender rather than embark upon a career of what might be seen as piracy. Captain Thomas Page of CSS Stonewall acknowledged the note but declined Boggs’s suggestion. (Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 3. pp. 520-521.)

While USS Connecticut was a former merchant steamer in no way capable of taking on CSS Stonewall, the arrival of two monitors at Havana changed the situation considerably. CSS Stonewall surrendered to Spanish authorities on May 30th - eventually to be handed over to the US government. In Havana, the monitors were the subject of much curiosity and received a steady stream of visitors eager to see the revolutionary vessels for themselves.

Photo Above: The former CSS Stonewall moored near the Washington Navy Yard after the Civil War. Naval History and Heritage Command Photo: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-43000/NH-43993.html

Returning from Havana, Rear Admiral Godon was obliged to send Canonicus into Port Royal, South Carolina, as the monitor did not have enough coal to reach his squadron’s final destination of Hampton Roads. In his report, he wrote of his ships,

“The squadron left Havana on the 6th (of June); the houses and wharves were crowded to witness the departure of the monitors, whose movements created the greatest surprise and interest. Our run has been a very favorable one, having had light and fair winds most of the time. For a few hours the sea was rough and broke over the turret of the Canonicus, which vessel was hardly suitable for such a voyage, being very slow in speed and having but 30 tons of coal remaining in her bunkers when she arrived at Havana. I should have been obliged to have left her at that port had I proceeded to Galveston, as I expected, in search of the Stonewall.

The Monadnock I consider a perfect success. She has steamed along with this ship, has given no trouble, and has caused me no anxiety. Her compasses are somewhat sluggish, and the Monticello was stationed ahead of her in order to give her a course to steer by at night. This defect can no doubt be remedied.

I will not be guilty here of the bad taste of expressing my regrets at not falling in with the Stonewall at sea in the midst of her destructive career, in order to prove with what ease she could have been taken. I think it better that her end should have been the insignificant one it is. One-half the force at my command could have captured her, and yet not be entitled to special praise. The Monadnock alone, as I have already said, is her superior in every way. As usual in rebel matters, the ram's greatest power consisted in the wild reports of her formidableness which were heralded in advance.” (Official Records - Navies. Ser. 1. Vol. 3. pp. 545-546).

Photo of Passaic-class monitor USS Nahant in commission - likely in 1898. She shows how the Passaics appeared by the 1890s. The earlier mixed armament had been replaced by a pair of 15-Inch guns with the gunports expanded for their use. The deck had been raised about 18 inches. A small superstructure was built aft of the turret. More ventilator pipes protruded above the deck. Naval History and Heritage Command Photo: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-45000/NH-45635.html

USS Canonicus saw service in the US Navy through the 1870s. In 1874, she was part of a (for the time) large squadron sent to Florida in the aftermath of the Virginius Affair. In June of 1874, the force at present at Key West consisted of the Colorado, Worcester, Ossipee, Brooklyn, Kansas, Shawmut, Dictator, Canonicus, Wachusett, and Pinta, together with the monitors Ajax, Saugus, Manhattan, and Mahopac, which were at Pensacola, in readiness for immediate service (1874 Report of the Secretary of the Navy, pg. 10). Canonicus would spend the latter half of the 1870s primarily in commission at New Orleans. The Secretary of the Navy’s 1879 report notes that Canonicus left New Orleans in May of that year and decommissioned at Pensacola at the end of the month (pg. 29). By 1885, Canonicus was one of several monitors out of commission and stored on the James River at City Point. She was identified as needing new boilers before she could see additional service (1885 Report. pp. 162 and 259).

Though a handful of the old monitors would see service in the 1880s and 1890s, USS Canonicus was not one of them. When war came with Spain in 1898, there was a need for ships to serve as harbor defense vessels, and the sight of the old ironclads reassured civilians that the navy was defending the coast. A total of around ten of the Passaic and Canonicus class monitors would be refitted as needed and brought into service. USS Canonicus received a good deal of work, but the refit was still incomplete when the defeat of the Spanish Navy largely ended the need for such ships. The Secretary's Report for 1899 listed the following work which had been done in 1898:, Completing new plumbing work and ventilating system; new hurricane deck, awning and life–line stanchions; boat davits, and miscellaneous deck fittings; docking, cleaning, and painting bottom; fitting piping and hose connections on main and superstructure decks; removing wood made necessary by fitting voice tubes; mounting four 3–inch and two 1–pounder guns; cleaning bilges and preparing for commissioning; building magazine for fixed ammunition; covering decks with crude turpentine and sawdust; and stowing construction fittings (pg. 609).

Photo above: US Navy monitors in ordinary at League Island Navy Yard (near Philadelphia). Canonicus is likely in this photo of monitors taken shortly after being put back into ordinary following the Spanish American War. Library of Congress Photo: https://www.loc.gov/item/2016804428/

Despite the funds spent making USS Canonicus and the other old monitors serviceable for harbor defense during the Spanish American War, the war made clear that the ancient ironclads with their cast iron, muzzle loading guns and laminated, iron armor had no business in a modern shooting war. The Navy evaluated whether it made sense to retain any of the old “single turreted” monitors. They were of little use for training sailors - even those of the state naval militias - because their obsolete armament and equipment was no longer like that used in the fleet. The occasional sentimental suggestion that one be retained as a relic - the concept of a ship museum was still in the future - was ignored. They were even rejected for use as target ships because their armor was too antiquated and offered no resistance to modern guns. With a rapidly expanding fleet of modern ships, the Navy had no interest in expending money on the old monitors.

Finally in 1904, the last five were offered for sale for scrap. Alone among the remaining monitors, USS Canonicus didn’t sell. Due to that accident, she was still in Navy hands when in 1905 an inquiry came whether it might be possible to display the ship at the Jamestown Exhibition planed for 1907 to celebrate the 300th Anniversary of the settlement of the Jamestown Colony. The intention was for Canonicus to represent the monitor type ironclad made famous in the March 1862 battle between USS Monitor and CSS Virginia. Despite some reservations both about the expenses to refit her for even external-only display and whether Canonicus would manage to stay afloat through this assignment, the needed work was done. Canonicus, the last of the Civil War monitors, was anchored not too far from where Monitor and Virginia had changed the world of naval combat. She was surrounded by the most modern ships of the United States Navy - battleships which would depart Hampton Roads later that year for the celebrated cruise of the Great White Fleet.

With the end of the exhibition, USS Canonicus was offered for sale as scrap. In April of 1908, USS Canonicus, the last monitor of the American Civil War, was finally sold.

Photo above: USS Canonicus at Hampton Roads for the Jamestown Exhibition of 1907. Naval History and Heritage Command Photo: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-78000/NH-78678.html

Photo above: Historical Marker at Naval Station Norfolk commemorating the battle between USS Monitor and CSS Virginia

Works consulted for this post include:

The Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion

The Annual Report of the Secretary of the Navy - Multiple Years, Via HathiTrust: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012202882

Canney, Donald L., The Old Steam Navy: The Ironclads, 1842-1885. Naval Institute Press, 1993.

Wright, Christopher C. (June 2021). "Canonicus at Jamestown, 1907". Warship International. LVIII (2): 126–162.